I played Oblivion at 8fps, bring it on
30 fps Lol, what kind of bushit is this? 30 fucking fps. Unplayable garbage.
I hope so! I’m interested in buying the single player game, and have absolutely zero interest in the online experience.
My 144 hz monitor has ruined my ability to enjoy normal refresh rates in games. I need a support group for this ffs.
We’ll get 60 and above on pc a while later anyway. Also the sold separately thing is probably just like they did with RDR2 where you could get everything or just the multiplayer part of the game, which I personally think is fine.
Honestly I’m fine with this as long as the graphics justifies the framerate.
I’m not. I don’t have a tricked out PC to wait LONGER THAN MY SON HAS BEEN ALIVE for a 30 frames AAA game.
That isn’t AAA. It’s pure corporate greed.
This is going to be TARGETED 30fps for consoles…
Your overpriced pc will probably go above that. Calm down
You calm down. Arrogant prick.
no u
It’s comment threads like this that just show how absolutely clueless G*mers are.
Good Lord, so much marketing about “next-gen” yet 60 still ain’t a guarantee 🤦♂️
30 fps wouldn’t be bad if its consistent and stable, have you ever played on a low end PC at 15-22 fps?
Bro if 30 fps is their target, I guarantee Switch 2 is going to get a version of this
If they intend to charge for GTA VI online, I will never play it
It’ll be a healthy decision
I don’t do modern consoles, do people consider 30fps acceptable?
Very rare to see 30fps games on PS5 that don’t have a performance option to get to 60.
Especially action games.
From what i have seen, 60fps is acceptable for High Settings, 30fps is acceptable when Ray tracing is turned on
No, 40 and 50 look good enough though, idk why people like 30 as a standard
It’s a number that divides easily into 120, which mattered more for old TVs, and it’s far enough over the threshold to trick our minds into seeing a bunch of still frames as a moving thing.
Not me. I think it’s insane to ship a PS5 game that performs that poorly even on non-“pro” consoles
The majority of people playing don’t know the difference. I am shocked there won’t be a 60fps mode, i can’t remember the last time I’ve been forced to play at 30fps outside of playing older games locked to it.
I would imagine the game is at the highest possible graphic fidelity for consoles, and also the scale of the game will have a factor.
Remember. Gta V came out 12 years ago. It didn’t run at 60fps on any console until the PS5
Yeah, i know, for myself I didn’t really get to experience it until 2016 when I built myself a PC with mid range specs and then when I got the ps4 pro in like 2018. I say it’s one of those things where once you get to have it, you never wanna go back.
Yeah. I have a PS5 and I heard gta 6 won’t launch on PC right away, but then I heard it is coming to PC lol. So idk. I’m almost hitting 40 and playing on my couch and tv has been more fun lately. But sometimes I just know a game will run much better on my PC.
What I should do is put my current build into a super small box with an external PSU and just install steam os and hook it up to my tv
It’s not shocking, when you consider the level of graphical fidelity they’ll be pushing on screen.
The more detail you add, the lower the framerate, on any given hardware. They will be balancing “oh my God!” level graphics, with playable frame rates. The fact they’re shooting for such a relatively low frame rate, shows how hard they’re pushing the hardware.
RDR2
Absolutely not. I don’t remember the last time I played a game without 60fps performance option on my PS5
Same, even on my old GPU I’d adjust quality until I got stable 60, otherwise no thanks.
A stable 30 fps is perfectly playable for most people, yes
For most people the further they sit away from a screen the less they are going to notice it. And console gamers play on a tv from the couch. Of course if you show them a 60fps version after they played in 30fps they will notice but most people don’t understand why that is and thus not care. Like how many people watch movies with motion smoothing on since they don’t see that it looks smoother than the movies in the cinema.
Rockstar can get away with this since the vast majority of GTA player will be mainstream casual gamers that only have fifa/madden and CoD in their gaming collection.
Most don’t, the people who say they don’t realize it probably also say that “there’s no difference between 1080p and 4k!”
deleted by creator
Yes, 30fps is fine, and expected even if you’re also expecting ultra realistic graphics. This expectation that people have of games being 60 fps and being stupid realistic is nonsense. You want realistic graphics and reflections when a game is first released, your gonna get 30 fps. And honestly, you can hardly tell the difference anyway.
Edit: Always expect the downvotes when I say this. The people in gaming subs, almost never understand how games are developed. Just demand without understanding the limitations of hardware and software.
Some games go to 120fps and are actually realistic.
GTA was never about realism, it just had a huge open world with tons of things to do.
I hope they release as independent games, with a bundle deal ideally.
I dont want to buy the multiplayer on console because i dont pay for console subscriptions just to play multiplayer. I will wait for a PC release to play purchase multiplayer once and not indefinitely pay for it.
If they do it will be $60 for single player and $30 for online instead of $60 for everything.
say it with me
EN SHITTI FICATION
First off, that fake word sucks. Second, it doesn’t really apply here anyway.
it does
rockstar like any ultracapitalistic brand loves money so much they’d do anything.
30fps…because switch2…because money.
i expect their onlinestuff to be prime ea lootbox and ai upsell shit. get a yacht for 1 million.
and again a like gta5 and 4…a story so superficial it will intrigue all the 15yr old alphamales and ppl that never grew up.
why dont you just join this milc metaverse stuff? more enshittification without the extra hurdles.
It makes a lot of sense to at least ask the question if you should split this game into two parts when each part has a very different pool of customers. I don’t think they’ll do it, because they want people in the online component to be present for multiplayer in the first place, but it makes sense to ask the question.
If this game is going to have issues running at 60 FPS on the PS5, I don’t think 30 FPS is for the benefit of the Switch 2. Even if it was, Switch 2 is a platform that people will want to play GTA on. The tech that Rockstar is trying to push forward comes at the cost of frame rate. That’s not making it shittier; it’s making different trade-offs.
Hey, maybe this time the script kiddies won’t be able to sabotage people’s SINGLEPLAYER GAMES!
Maybe it’ll also actually get sp dlc?
Only way I buy this:
- It is priced at 60 to 70 dollars (fuck that still hurts)
- It has a solid OFFLINE story mode.
If they try pull 100 dollar bullshit or fill it with micro transactions then I am out. Also I will not pre order this game (I didn’t with 5) I will wait until its out and I hear good things from the players.
Just like I did with 5. Had coworker who was bragging about the game every day. Finally and picked up a copy at Vintage Stock. This is the original PS3 version only one I have.
Point 2 is the biggest for me. I haven’t played more than 30 minutes of gta5 online. Single player story is where it’s at. Wish we got more DLC.
Same only tried it once was no fun. Yes they game was built to have multiple DLCs or hell lot more story could of been told.
I only recently started playing again specifically because I found out that all the missions in online mode that required you to be in a public lobby are now able to be ran in a private lobby. Playing in a solo lobby is basically like getting more SP story (there are story missions in GTAO; it’s not all races and DM). Don’t have to deal with cheaters or asshats.
Does it work on PS3?
I’m tempted to hold out on the FOMO and wait for the inevitable PC release
I think it will be 80 dollars, with bigger editions available, eg. including online mode. For me, the 30fps is the most annoying, I was never a performance fanatic, but I’m used to 60 now.
What why they lower it? That make no sense with the new hardware of PS5 and Xbox Sx or whatever it’s called.
Genuine question, why is $100 too much for a quality game? Completely agreed on the micro transactions though
Hm… how much is too much, then? If 70% higher than the industry standard isn’t too nuch
Wow people really didn’t like my question!
To respond to yours though, I’d say it depends on how much content there is! If a game can easily take 1000 hours with no degradation of enjoyment, I would pay $100 for it
Edit to add: I realize this didnt exactly address your question, but I’m not sure what percentage since it heavily depends on the quality and quantity of content
For me personally, I find it really easy to add “hours” to a game’s runtime, and I’d sooner pay more for a higher quality experience and a shorter runtime. I’ve spent about a fifth of that 1000 mark in both Baldur’s Gate 3 and Elden Ring, and they’d have been worth $100 to me. Indiana Jones was worth every bit of the $70 I paid, and it took me under 20 hours.
Loved all gtas. Never played any for anywhere close to 1000 hours. Probably closer to 100. So that’s like… 10$? Seems fair to me, no?
Funny enough, all the games in which I have more than 1000 hours are all f2p.
If the biggest game of the decade charges $100, every triple A game will charge the same, and other games will probably be more expensive as well, and in most cases it’ll be more money for the same steadily decreasing quality, at least in the triple A market.
What makes you think other games will be able to get away with $100 when plenty of them are having a tough time getting away with $70?
The only full price game I recall ever buying was Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3 (back when £35 was the standard “full price” price point). Now that one was worth it, but no other AAA game that I can think of has justified the cost to me. Once we’re talking about that amount of money there’s a lot of other things I would get more enjoyment from.
I think I paid about £10 for GTA V. I’d maybe go to £15 or £20 these days, but beyond that I simply have other things I could play.
Meh I’d drop 100 plus on standard night out. I dont buy many games but buying God of War Ragnarok for 30 and getting 100 hours of entertainment was well worth it, to the point I regret not buying it full price day one.
There are many things I’d spend more on, but gaming is something that I can spend a lot of hours on without necessarily enjoying. As in, the experiences are often weirdly compulsive and before I know it I’ve tanked eighty hours without really enjoying it all that much.
I collected all the submarine collectibles in GTA V - do I think that was more fun than a party with friends? Absolutely not. Did it take more time? Most definitely.
I was looking at it more in terms of using free time, not a one to one comparison
Exactly. $100 is a lot of money, however games are cheaper than ever these days (adjusted for inflation) and $100 for no micro transactions sounds fair.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy it at that price either. I‘d wait for a sale…
